On 1/13/2013 8:01 AM, Mark wrote:
I'm guessing this RFC won't make it in PHP 5.5? Too bad since it did
seem like a very nice feature to have.
I don't know if it is very helpful but posting nevertheless. I'm a
C++/Qt/QML/PHP developer and for me the proposed syntax in the v1.2
document makes perfect sense and is intuitive to use. As for the
earlier example about isset...
i'd expect an example like this:
class SomeClass {
public $date {
get;
set(DateTime $date);
}
}
$temp = new SomeClass();
i'd expect "isset($temp->date)" to return exactly the same as if the
class where defined like this:
class SomeClass {
public $date;
}
That's correct, it will.
Furthermore, isset() will never throw an error, even if it would not be
legal to call isset or get (from 1.1 RFC changes).
I don't know if that issue was already sorted out but i wanted to
share my expectations in that regards.
Will this make PHP 5.5? Or will it be deferred to 5.6?
Nikita, Stas and I are working very hard to make it into 5.5, we expect
to propose a vote sometime in the next couple of days.
** Any remaining feedback is appreciated, the RFC is being kept up to
date w/ current understood consensus. **
--
-Clint
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
